Document 7: Debate over sex amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congressional Record, 88th Cong., 2d sess., 8 February 1964, pp. 2577-84.

Representative Martha Griffiths, who was central in the introduction of sex as a protected category in the
Civil Rights Act, in August 1970. Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress.


   Debate on the sex amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act revealed complex currents of political change. As the Congressional Record makes clear, conservative southern Democrats and northern Congresswomen from both parties were the primary defenders of the sex amendment during the debate in the House of Representatives. Martha Griffiths (D-Michigan) strongly defended the sex amendment even though the House Democratic leadership, as reflected in the remarks of Emmanuel Celler of Brooklyn and Edith Green of Oregon, energetically opposed the amendment. At that moment, Martha Griffiths represented the new politics that was possible after the 1963 report by the President's Commission on the Status of Women, which expressed a bipartisan desire to improve the working conditions of women in the paid labor force.[35]

    A Democrat from Michigan in the Roosevelt-Truman tradition, Griffiths had seen through her work on the House Ways and Means Committee how Social Security laws discriminated against white women as well as Black. She was willing to step away from the labor feminist position Edith Green expressed and vote in concert with Republican women from Ohio, New York, and Washington to add sex as a blanket category. This strategy had heretofore been supported by equal rights feminists but opposed by labor feminists because it threatened to negate hours and wage laws for women, which most wage-earning women supported.

    The representatives who voted in support of the amendment (which passed 168 to 133), included many white southerners who later voted against the Civil Rights Act and hoped that the sex amendment would sink the bill.[36] Yet supporters of the amendment also included many who were willing to endorse new federal protections for white women wage earners because they saw that protection for Black men and Black women was an inevitable result of the popular power of the Civil Rights Movement. The debate shows women surmounting old partisan barriers and uniting behind new legal strategies.

[p. 2577]


   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   Amendment offered by Mr. SMITH of Virginia: On page 68, line 23, after the word "religion," insert the word "sex."

   On page 69, line 10, after the word "religion." insert the word "sex."

On page 69, line 17, after the word "religion." insert the word "sex."

   On page 70, line 1, after the word "religion." insert the word "sex."

   On page 71, line 5, after the word "religion," insert the word "sex."

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would hot be here today.

   Now, I am very serious about this amendment. It has been offered several times before, but it was offered at inappropriate places in the bill. Now, this is the appropriate place for this amendment to come in. I do not think it can do any harm to this legislation; maybe it can do some good. I think it will do some good for the minority sex.

   I think we all recognize and it is indisputable fact that all throughout industry women are discriminated against in that just generally speaking they do not get as high compensation for their work as do the majority sex. Now, if that is true, I hope that the committee chairman will accept this amendment

   That is about all I have to say about it except, to get off of this subject for just a moment but to show you how some of the ladles feel about discrimination against them. I want to read you an extract from a letter that I received the other day. This lady has a real grievance on behalf of the minority sex. She said that she had seen that I was going to present an amendment to protect the most important sex and she says:

   I suggest that you might also favor an amendment or a bill to correct the present "imbalance" which exists between males and females in the United States.

   Then she goes on to say—and she has her statistics, which is the reason why I am reading it to you, because this is Serious—

   The census of 1960 shows that we had 88,331,000 males living in this country, and 90,992,000 females, which leaves the country with an "imbalance" of 2,661,000 females.

   Now another paragraph:

   Just why the Creator would set up such an imbalance of spinsters, shutting off the "right" of every female to have a husband of her own. is, of course, known only to nature.

   But I am sure you will agree that this is a grave in injustice—

   And I do agree, and I am reading you the letter because I want all the rest of you to agree, you of the majority—

   But I am sure you will agree that this is a grave injustice to womankind and something the Congress and President Johnson should take immediate steps to correct—

   And you interrupted me just now before I could finish reading the sentence, which continues on:

Immediate steps to correct, especially in this election year.

   Now, I Just want to remind you here that in this election year it is pretty nearly half of the voters in this country that are affected, so you had better sit up and take notice.

   She also says this, and this is a very cogent argument, too:

   Up until now, instead of assisting these poor unfortunate females in obtaining their "right" to happiness, the Government has on several occasions engaged, in wars which killed off a large number of eligible; males, creating an "imbalance" in our male and female population that was even worse than before.

   Would you have any suggestions as to what course our Government might pursue to protect our spinster friends in their "right" to a nice husband and family?

   I read that letter just to illustrate that women have some real grievances and some real rights to be protected. I am serious about this thing. I just hope that the committee will accept it. Now. what harm can you do this bill that was so perfect yesterday and is so imperfect today—what harm will this do to the condition of the bill?

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

   Mr. CELLER Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Oh, no

   Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman. I heard with a great deal of interest the statement of the gentleman from Virginia that women are in the minority. Not in my house. I can say as a result of 49 years of experience—and I celebrate my 50th wedding anniversary next year—that women, indeed, are not in the minority in my house. As a matter of fact, the reason I would suggest that we have been living in such harmony, such delightful accord for almost half a century is that I usually have the last two words, and those words are, "Yes, dear." Of course, we all remember the famous play by George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman"; and man was not the superman, the other sex was.

   I received a letter this morning from the U.S. Department of Labor which reads as follows:

Washington, February 7, 1964.

   This is in response to your inquiry about the reaction of the Women's Bureau to suggestions that the civil rights bill be amended to prohibit Job discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race, creed, color, or national origin.

   Assistant Secretary, of Labor Esther Peterson who is in charge of the Women's Bureau has replied to requests for support of such an amendment in the following way:

   "This question, of broadening civil rights legislation to prohibit discriminations based on sex has arisen previously. The President's Commission on the Status of Women gave this matter careful consideration in its discussion of Executive Order 10925 which now prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin in employment under Federal contracts. Its conclusion is stated on page 30 of its report. "American Women." as follows:

   "‘We are aware that this order could be expanded to forbid discrimination based on sex. But discrimination based on sex, the Commission believes, involves problems sufficiently different from discrimination based on the other factors listed to make separate treatment preferable.’

   "In view of this policy conclusion reached by representatives from a variety of women's organizations and private and public agencies to attack discriminations based on sex separately, we are of the opinion that to attempt to so amend H.R. 7152 would not be to the best advantage of women at this time"

   So we have an expression of opinion from the Department of Labor to the effect that it will be ill advised to append to this bill the word "sex" and provide for discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, and sex as well. Of course, there has been before us for a considerable length of time, before the Judiciary Committee, an equal rights amendment. At first blush it seems fair, Just, and equitable to grant these equal rights. But when you examine carefully what the import and repercussions are concerning equal rights throughout American life, and all facets of American life you run into a considerable amount of difficulty.

   You will find that there are in the equality of sex that some people glibly assert, and without reason serious problems. I have been reluctant as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to give favorable consideration to that constitutional amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

   Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

   There was no objection.

   Mr. CELLER. You know, the French have a phrase for it when they speak of women and men. When they speak of the difference, they say "vive la difference."

   I think the French are right.

   Imagine the upheaval that would result from adoption of blanket language requiring total equality. Would male citizens be justified in insisting that women share with them the burdens of compulsory military service? What would become of traditional family relationships? What about alimony? Who would have the obligation of supporting whom? Would fathers rank equally with mothers in the right of custody to children? What would become of the crimes of rape and statutory rape? Would the Mann Act be invalidated? Would the many State and local provisions regulating working conditions and hours of employment for women be struck down?

   You know the biological differences between the sexes. In many States we have laws favorable to women. Are you

[p. 2578]

going to strike those laws down? This is the entering wedge, an amendment of this sort. The list of foreseeable consequences, I will say to the committee, is unlimited.

   What is more, even conceding that some degree of discrimination against women obtains in the area of employment, it is contrary to the situation with respect to civil rights for Negroes. Real and genuine progress is being made in discrimination against women. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, for example, which become law last June, amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by prohibiting discrimination between employees on the basis of sex, with respect to wages for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility.

   It is a little surprising to find the gentleman from Virginia offering the language he does offer as an amendment to the pending measure. The House knows that this is the language of a proposed constitutional amendment introduced in the House.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. CELLER. It is rather anomalous that two men of our age should be on the opposite sides of this question.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I am sure we are not. But I know the gentleman is under obligation not to submit any amendments other than those that are agreed upon between the coalition of the Republicans and Democrats that is controlling the movement of the committee. I wanted to ask the gentleman to clarify what he said. I did not exactly get what he stated about Negroes. He said he was surprised.

   Mr. CELLER. I was a little surprised at your offering the amendment.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. About what?

   Mr. CELLER. Because I think the amendment seems illogical, ill timed, ill placed, and improper. I was of that opinion, the amendment coming from the astute and very wise gentleman from Virginia.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Your surprise at my offering the amendment does not nearly approach my surprise, amazement, and sorrow at your opposition to it.

   Mr. CELLER. As long as there is a little levity here, let me repeat what I heard some years ago, which runs as follows:

Lives there a man with hide so tough Who says, "Two sexes are not enough."

   In any event, I refer again to the President's Commission. They came to the conclusion in these words:

   The Commission strongly urges in the carrying out or this recommendation special attention be given to difficulties that are wholly or largely the products of this kind of discrimination.

   The Commission says, wait until mature studies have been made. I say, wait, indeed, until more returns are in before we attempt to do anything like this on this bill. In any event, it should not be done piecemeal, it should be done generally and universally.

   Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

   Mr. Chairman, as I have offered this same amendment to some of the prior titles to which it was applicable, including one concerning education, in which I placed in the RECORD a number of instances where women are discriminated against in getting an education, if the chairman of the committee will permit me to ask a question. this letter he read from the Women's Bureau, was it signed by a man or a woman?

   Mr. CELLER. It was signed by a man.

   Mr. DOWDY. I had an idea that would be true—the letter from the Women's Bureau of the Department of labor opposing this equal rights for women amendment was signed by a man. I think there is no need for me to say more. Even the Department set up by the U.S. Government for the benefit of women is opposed to equal rights in employment for women. I urge the adoption of this amendment. I would have offered it myself, but yielded the honor to my beloved colleague from Virginia [Mr. SMITH].

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, it is always perfectly delightful when some enchanting gentleman, from the South particularly, calls us the minority group. We used to be but we are not any more. I have just had the figures sent me. You males, as you seem to like to call yourselves, are 88,331,494. We females, as you like to call us, are 90,991,681. So I regret to state that we can no longer be the minority; indeed, we have not been for some time.

   Also. I would like to suggest that to read the sports news about the winter games in Innsbruck. I think it was a woman who rather saved the United States situation?

   I think that perhaps this particular motion of the gentleman from Virginia may be displaced. I do not know enough about parliamentary methods to be certain, and I have not studied it. But I do propose to submit an amendment in the 10th title, which I am told is germane there, and I shall present it at the appropriate time.

   Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessce.

   Mr. BASS. With relation to her remarks and her amendment. I just got off an airplane.

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. You did?

   Mr. BASS. Yes, now what I was leading up to is this. A young lady works for an airline company: and she is worried about discrimination against married women because she is about to get married. Then she will lose her job. So she wants something done to prevent discrimination against married women.

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. May I suggest to the gentleman that married women get along very well because they usually, after they have had their children and brought them to a certain age, go back into business to really protect the family against too little money.

   Mr. BASS. I am for all women, I want the record to show that I am for both the unmarried and the married women.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON I yield to the gentleman.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. If I understood the gentlewoman correctly, she said, I believe, that she would support this pending amendment that I have offered, but that you expect to offer an amendment to title X?

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Yes; that is title X, the miscellaneous title.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I do not like the idea here of it going in under "miscellaneous." I think women are entitled to more dignity than that.

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. My colleague, may I suggest to you, that we are so used to being just "miscellaneous."

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. What I wanted to say is entirely in a cooperative spirit, but I suggest that the gentlewoman examine title X because I do not think there is any place there where it would be suitable and maybe it is not germane.

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. We can take that up when I offer the amendment. I am so happy to have the gentleman's opinion in the matter.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I was just hoping that the good gentlewoman was going to give her full support to my amendment, and then we will talk about her amendment.

   Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. I would also like to add at this moment when we have been victorious over there at Innsbruck, this statement: Even your bones harden long before our bones do—we live longer, we have more endurance.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment.

   Mr. Chairman. I presume that, if there had been any necessity to have pointed out that women were a second-class sex, the laughter would have proved it.

   Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment primarily because I feel as a white woman when this bill has passed this House and the Senate and has been signed by the President that white women will be last at the hiring gate.

   In his great work "The American Dilemma," the Swedish sociologist pointed out 20 years ago what white women and Negroces occupied relatively the same position in American society.

   Before I begin my argument, however, I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from New York, a question.

   Mr. Chairman, is it your judgment that this bill will protect colored men and colored women at the hiring gate equally?

   Mr. CELLER. This bill is all-embracing and will cover everybody in the United States.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. It will cover every colored man and every colored woman?

   Mr. CELLER. Yes, it will cover white men and white women and all Americans.

[p. 2579]

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. We will find out in just a few minutes now differently it is going to cover them.

   Now I would like to ask you if in your judgment this bill says at any point that a Negro woman will only be protected if she is applying for a job historically held by a white woman?

   Could she then invoke the act?

   Mr. CELLER. It would apply to a Negro woman if she were proscribed or discriminated against on the basis of race.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. If she applied for a job which had been historically held by a white man?

   Mr. CELLER. I do not know about the "historically." The point is, if there is evidence that she has been proscribed or discriminated against in hiring, firing. promotion, or in matters of seniority, and if there were an element of discrimination which could be proved and demonstrated, then there would be a violation of the act involved.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Then may we consider an example. Suppose a Negro woman had been washing dishes in a "greasy spoon," a very poor restaurant, and farther up the street there was a very good restaurant which employed only white people, and all the dishwashers were white men. Suppose they put a sign in the window, "dishwasher wanted." The Negro woman with experience, qualified, let us suppose, applied for the job and was turned away.

   In the chairman's judgment, could she invoke the provisions of the act?

   Mr. CELLER. If the Negress who applied for the job was disqualified because of the pigmentation of her skin, because she was colored, the act would apply.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Suppose the employer said to her. "No, we will not employ you as a dishwasher. We have only men dishwashers." And suppose she replied. "Sir, you have only white people in this restaurant. I am qualified."

   Mr. CELLER. It all involves a question as to whether or not there has been discrimination based upon color. That is a question of fact which has to be determined, finally.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. In your judgment —and you are a good lawyer—that woman would have made a prima facie case, would she not?

   Mr. CELLER. Not necessarily. We would want to get more facts. We would have to inquire.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. That is the easy case. Let us make it tougher.

   Suppose there were three men dishwashers and two women dishwashers and one man dishwasher quit, and they wished to fill one job. Suppose the Negro woman applied, and was qualified.

   Would she not have made a prima facie case?

   Mr. CELLER. If it can be said that she is qualified and that the employer deliberately refused to accept her because of the color of her skin, then there would be the discrimination covered by this act.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Right.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Michigan has expired.

   (By unanimous consent. Mrs. GRIFFITHS was given permission to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)

   Mr. CELLER. May I add, of course the gentlewoman did not take into consideration the numerical requirements: that in the first year of the operation of the act the place would have 100 employees, in the second year 50 employees, and in the third year 25.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. We will be glad to make it the first year after the act, and 100 employees. That is no problem at all.

   Let us try the next case.

   I come from a city in which there is a university. It is my understanding that there has never been a woman political scientist employed at that university to teach political science. Suppose a colored woman political scientist applied for a job. Could she or could she not invoke the act?

   Mr. CELLER. Of course, we are addressing ourselves to business activity. It is conceivable that colleges might be covered. There again, if there were discrimination then there would be a violation.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Could a white woman turned away from the college or from the restaurant where all the employees were white invoke the act? Would a white woman have any recourse under the act?

   Mr. CELLER. I think we covered that in colloquies we had in the earlier part of the afternoon. There could be discrimination against white people and there could be against colored people.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, you know well and good if every employee of that restaurant were white, that that woman cannot go to the FEPC or to a district attorney and say, "I was turned away from there because I was white," because every employee is white there.

   Mr. CELLER. That is speculation. Of course, that may be due to the derelictions of the particular Government agency: and if there are such cases, there is discrimination, and I think we, as Members of Congress, should all complain if it happens. You have, for example, in your own State. I am just informed, an FEPC, and if that occurred in your State, I think they ought to be notified and you ought to ask some questions of that FEPC.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, I had a white woman come to my office who had been turned away from the FEPC. They refused even to consider her case. She had gone directly to the Michigan, Unemployment Compensation Commission. They had not only considered her case, but they gave her compensation on the basis that no person has to work in fear of their life. The Fair Employment Practices Commission of Michigan refused to acknowledge they ever considered the case and that she ever made the complaint.

   Mr. CELLER. Knowing the true and dedicated spirit in which you do your work, if that lady came to you, I am sure you would get redress for her.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

   Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed to some of the arguments I have heard on this floor against adding the word "sex." In some of the arguments, I have heard the comment that the Chairman is making, which is, that this makes it an equal rights bill. Of course it does not even approach making it an equal rights bill. This is equal employment rights. In one field only—employment. And if you do not add sex to this bill, I really do not believe there is a reasonable person sitting here who does not by now understand perfectly that you are going to have white men in one bracket, you are going to try to take colored men and colored women and give them equal employment rights, and down at the bottom of the list is going to be a white woman with no rights at all.

   Let me repeat the example that I have just given you in the case of the restaurant. In that particular case, or in the case of the university, the Chairman knows and I know that a white woman, when she asks for that job and is turned away, has no recourse, and nobody on earth has to explain for it. Furthermore, they have been turned away so many times in so many cases, without writing but with laughter, that it will be impossible for any employee to prove that an employer has systematically discriminated against women on account of sex. So, when the colored woman shows up and she is qualified, she is going to have an open entree into any particular field.

   Now, when I brought this up with various lawyers on the floor, one of them suggested to me that I was really trying to give a 100-pound woman the right to drive a haulaway truck. So I got to thinking about it. That is not really what I am trying to do, but let us take a case. Supposing a little 100-pound colored woman arrives at the management's door and asks for the job of driving a haulaway truck, and he says, "Well, you are not qualified," and she says, "Oh, yes, I am. During the war I was the motorman on a streetcar in Detroit. For the last 15 years I have driven the schoolbus."

   Surely. Mr. Chairman, we are hiring the best drivers to drive the most precious cargo. Of course, that woman is qualified. But he has only white men drivers. Do you not know that that woman is not going to have a right under this law? Merely to ask the question is to answer it.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Michigan [Mrs GRIFFITHS] has expired.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Michigan?

   There was no objection.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Now, it has been suggested to me by one Member on the floor that if a job were repeatedly filled by colored women, that a white woman would be able to invoke the Federal Employment Practices Act. In my judgment, as long as a majority of the drivers in a haulaway concern were white

[p. 2580]

drivers, as long as the majority of employees in the restaurant, in the university, were white people, no white woman could invoke the act. She will continue to work in the greasy spoon, drive the schoolbus, and do the other underpaid jobs.

   Some people have suggested to me that labor opposes "no discrimination on account of sex" because they feel that through the years protective legislation has been built up to safeguard the health of women. Some protective legislation was to safeguard the health of women, but it should have safeguarded the health of men, also. Most of the so-called protective legislation has really been to protect men's right in better paying jobs.

   As late as 1948 such an argument came from the State of Michigan before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Goesart et al. against Cleary et al. In the most vulgar and insulting of decisions handed down in this century by the Supreme Court, notable for its lack of legal learning as well as for its arrogant prejudice, the majority of the Supreme Court decided that it was well within the police powers of the State of Michigan for the legislature to draw the most arbitrary and capricious of lines as to who could tend bar in Michigan.

   I am happy to say that in the dissenting minority were justices Rutledge and Frank Murphy of the State of Michigan who said:

   While the equal protection clause does not require a legislature to achieve "abstract symmetry" or to classify with "mathematical nicety" that clause does require lawmakers to refrain from invidious distinctions of the sort drawn by the statute challenged in this case.

   In the majority opinion, however, there was a most interesting statement made which, I think when this bill is passed, may be tested. The majority said:

   The Constitution does not require a legislature to reflect sociological insight or shifting social standards any more than it requires them to keep abreast or the latest scientific standards.

   Now, of course, that runs directly contrary to the statement made long ago that the decisions of the Supreme Court follow the election returns.

   In my opinion, when this bill is passed, some of these arbitrary classifications passed in State statutes will be tested again by colored women, and I have yet to find a lawyer on this floor who cares to state unequivocally that the State law will continue to prevail.

   In other words, if labor is seeking to maintain the old distinction, they will do far better to support this amendment and ask for a savings clause in this law, and we will all start even in the morning.

   It would be incredible to me that white men would be willing to place white women at such a disadvantage except that white men have done this before. When the 14th amendment had become the law of the land, a brave woman named Virginia Minor, native-born, free, white citizen of the United States and the State of Missouri, read the amendment, and on the 15th of October 1872, appeared to register to vote. The registrar replied that the State of Missouri had a statute which said that only males could register to vote. Her reply, or course, was, "Why, the 14th amendment says ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’"

   In October 1874 in 13 pages of tortured legal reasoning, the Supreme Court of the United States explained how the Missouri law prevailed, and finally said:

   The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had.

   So, Mr. Chairman, your greatgrand-fathers were willing as prisoners of their own prejudice to permit ex-slaves to vote, but not their own white wives.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 additional minutes.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Michigan?

   There was no objection.

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, more than 40 years passed before the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. But white women alone did not secure that right. White men voted for that right: but white people alone did not secure that right. Colored men voted for that right, and colored women were among the suffragettes. Sojourner Truth, a Detroit woman. was the greatest of all of these.

   Mr. Chairman, a vote against this amendment today by a white man is a vote against his wife, or his widow, or his daughter, or his sister.

   If we are trying to establish equality in jobs. I am for it, but I am for making white women equal, also.

   Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike out the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman. I was somewhat amazed when I came on the floor this afternoon to hear the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary make the remark that he considered the amendment at this point illogical. I can think of nothing more logical than this amendment at this point.

   This bill, which I support, so that you will know that I am not just talking off the top of my head, this bill if it is to become law will be a law that exists in a stronger form in 32 States of our Union. It will then be imposed on the other 18 States.

   In support of this I would like to read a colloquy which was held not in executive session, certainly, but in open session of the Rules Committee, in which I asked the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. MCCULLOCH], about this very thing. If you will bear with me a minute, I will read it:

   Mrs. ST. GEORGE Mr. Chairman, there is one question I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio. Is it a fact that the law as now constituted in your State of Ohio and in my State of New York is. If anything, stronger than the law as it will be if this legislation passes?

   Mr. MCCULLOCH. The law of the State of New York and the law of the State of Ohio is much stronger in the affected fields than is this legislation.

   Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Another question. There are 32 States, as I understand it, that already have civil rights legislation. Are those States also in most cases stronger in their civil rights legislation than they would be under this law?

   Mr. MCCULLOCH. Without having read every State statute. I would say the States with the large populations without exception have legislation in this field that is stronger than that which we propose.

   Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Going on from there, in other words, there are 18 States that do not have such legislation, is that correct?

   Mr. MCCULLOCH. That is correct.

   Mrs. ST. GEORGE. So, this is really being written for those 18 States, to all intents and purposes, because we already have this, so this will not make any very great difference to us, except if it supersedes the law of the State. Is it going to do that?

   Mr. MCCULLOCH. It is not intended to supersede the laws of the States, except when it is in conflict and grants or insures lesser rights than are provided for in this legislation.

   Mrs.ST. GEORGE. Otherwise, as in my State of New York, we will continue to function under the law as it is now written in the State of New York, and in your State of Ohio it will be the same thing?

   Mr. MCCULLOCH. That is true.

   Mrs. ST. GEORGE. So, when we come right back to brass tacks, this is legislation written for 18 States which do not have civil rights legislation at the present time.

   Mr. MCCULLOCH. I think that is an accurate statement. yes.

   The reason I bring that up is that a great many gentlemen, the predominating membership of this House, have a facetlous way of saying to any woman on the question of equality. equal rights under the law, and so forth, "But you have all that already."

   Mr. Chairman. I am willing to admit that in a great many States we have got it already.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York has expired.

   (By unanimous consent. Mrs. ST. GEORGE was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)

   Mrs. ST. GEORGE. But there are still many States where this equality does not exist.

   There are still many States where women cannot serve on juries. There are still many States where women do not have equal educational opportunities. In most States and, in fact, I figure it would be safe to say, in all States— women do not get equal pay for equal work. That is a very well known fact.

   Protective legislation prevents, as my colleague from the State of Michigan just pointed out—prevents women from going into the higher salary brackets. Yes. it certainly does.

   Women are protected—they cannot run an elevator late at night and that is when the pay is higher.

   They cannot serve in restaurants and cabarets late at night—when the tips are higher—and the load, if you please, is lighter.

[p. 2581]

   So it is not exactly helping them—oh, no, you have taken beautiful care of the women.

   But what about the offices, gentlemen, that are cleared every morning about 2 or 3 o'clock in the city of New York and the offices that are cleaned quite early here in Washington. D.C.? Does anybody worry about those women? I have never heard of anybody worrying about the women who do that work.

   So you see the thing is completely unfair.

   And to say that this is illogical. What is illogical about it? All you are doing is simply correcting something that goes back, frankly to the Dark Ages. Because what you are doing is to go back to the days of the revolution when women were chattels. Of course, women were not mentioned in the Constitution. They belonged, first of all, to their fathers; then to their husbands or to their nearest male relative. They had no command over their own property. They were not supposed to be equal in any way, and certainly they were never expected to be or believed to be equal intellectually.

   Well, I will admit from what I have seen very frequently here, I think the majority sex in the House of Representatives may not consider us mentally quite equal, but I think on the whole considering what a small minority we are here that we have not done altogether too badly.

   I think for that reason, if for no other, we would like to be given more opportunities.

   I can assure you we can take them.

   I can assure you that we have fought our way a long way since those days of the Revolution. We have fought our way a long way even since the beginning of this century. Why should women be denied equality of opportunity? Why should women be denied equal pay for equal work? That is all we are asking.

   We do not want special privileges. We do not need special privilege. We outlast you—we outlive you—we nag you to death. So why should we want special privileges?

   I believe that we can hold our own. We are entitled to this little crumb of equality.

   The addition of that little, terrifying word "s-e-x" will not hurt this legislation in any way. In fact, it will improve it. It will make it comprehensive. It will make it logical. It will make it right.

   Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I suppose that this may go down in history as "women's afternoon." but the women of the House, I feel sure, recognize that you men will be the ones who finally make the decision.

   I wish to say first to the gentleman who offered this amendment and to others who by their applause I am sure are giving strong support to it that I, f or one, welcome the conversion, because I remember when we were working on the equal pay bill that, lf I correctly understand the mood of the House, those gentlemen of the House who are most strong in their support of women's rights this afternoon, probably have us the most opposition when we considered the bill which would grant equal pay for equal work just a very few months ago. I say I welcome the conversion and hope it is of long duration.

   I do not know whether I am in the minority or whether I am in the majority earlier referred to by the gentleman from Virginia and I do not know whether, after I leave the floor today. I shall be called an "uncle Tom"—or perhaps an "aunt Jane." However, as the author of the equal pay bill and as a member of the President's Commission on the Status of Women. I believe I have demonstrated my concern and my determination to advance women's opportunities in every reasonable way possible. But—I do not believe this is the time or place for this amendment.

   Let me say first that I agree with many of the statements my women colleagues have made about the great amount of discrimination against women. Any woman who wants to have career, who wants to go into the professions, who wants to work. I feel cannot possibly reach maturity without being very keenly and very painfully made aware of all the discrimination placed against her because of her sex.

   This is true when I am invited to a club in Washington as a guest to attend a conference, and when I arrive at the front door to attend that conference, solely because I am a woman, I have to go to the side door to gain admittance.

   I do not know whether you gentlemen realize it, but not long ago—in fact, in September—a group of Latin American editors were invited to the Press Club here in Washington. D.C. When that group of 12 Latin American editors arrived there was one woman among them, and the group was barred admission to the Press Club and held up for 20 minutes because one woman was in the group. After 20 minutes the group, including the woman editor, was finally escorted up the fire steps at the back of the building. That is a matter of record.

   I do not feel that anyone can really, honestly deny various discriminations in many ways.

   Mr. Chairman, discrimination is also rampant in politics. You gentlemen want the women to work in your campaigns, but I hear more jokes about women in politics than about women in any other field.

   If I may digress, I have tremendous admiration for MARGARET CHASE SMITH— for her ability, for her integrity, for her political courage. I do not know—but deep down in her heart I do not believe she feels honestly she could possibly win this year—but what wonderful courage! And perhaps she is making that sacrifice hit which will allow some woman at some time in the future to get to third base or possibly to score.

   After I have said all of this Mr. Chairman, I honestly cannot support the amendment. For every discrimination that has been made against a woman in this country there has been 10 times as much discrimination against the Negro of this country. There has been 10 times maybe 100 times as much humiliation for the Negro woman, for the Negro man and for the Negro child. Yes and for the Negro baby who is born into a world of discrimination.

   From the first day of life that baby is the object of discrimination—sometimes subtle, sometimes cruel, and he or she will feel it far more keenly all of his life than I possibly could. Yes—the Negro will suffer far more from discrimination than any discrimination that has been placed against me as a woman or against any other woman just because of her sex. Whether we want to admit it or not, the main purpose of this legislation today is to try to help end the discrimination that has been practiced against Negroes. This becomes almost a way of life. May I submit to my women colleagues, while I join with you in objecting to the discrimination against women, may I say that in all fairness the discrimination against the female of the species is not really a "way of life" and, I repeat, it is a way of life against Negroes in many parts of the country and has been for far too many years. And I must admit to my male colleagues that sometimes, in some ways, maybe women do net some advantages. However, this bill is primarily for the purpose of ending discrimination against Negroes in voting and in public accommodations and in education and, yes, in employment, under this FEPC law. As much as I hope the day will come when discrimination will be ended against women, I really and sincerely hope that this amendment will not be added to this bill. It will clutter up the bill and it may later—very well—be used to help destroy this section of the bill by some of the very people who today support it. And I hope that no other amendment will be added to this bill on sex or age or anything else, that would jeopardize our primary purpose in any way.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

   Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. GREEN] may proceed for 5 additional minutes.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

   There was no objection.

   Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of American freedom and liberty, cruel discriminations cry out to be corrected in this Nation. Today. I repeat, let us not add any amendment that would place in Jeopardy in any way our primary objective of ending that discrimination that is most serious, most urgent, most tragic, and most widespread against the Negroes of our country.

   May I also say I am not in complete agreement with everything that has been said by my women colleagues. I think that I, as a while woman, have been discriminated against, yes—but for every discrimination that I have suffered, I firmly believe that the Negro woman has suffered 10 times that amount of discrimination. She has a double discrimination. She was born as a woman and she

[p. 2582]

was born as a Negro. She has suffered 10 times as much discrimination as I have. If I have to wait for a few years to end this discrimination, against me, and my women friends—then as far as I am concerned I am willing to do that if the rank discrimination against Negroes will be finally ended under the so-called protection of the law.

   May I say. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, there was not one word of testimony in regard to this amendment given before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House or before the Committee, on Education and Labor of the House, where this bill was considered. I repeat—here was not one single bit of testimony given in regard to this amendment. There was not one single organization in the entire United States that petitioned either one of these committees to add this amendment to the bill. There was not one single Member of the House who came to the Committee on Education and Labor or who came to the Committees on the Judiciary and offered such an amendment.

   Finally, Mr. Chairman, may I read a letter which was sent to me yesterday which follows. It is from the American. Association of University Women:

House of Representatives.
Washington, D.C

   DEUS MAS GREEN: It has been brought to the attention of the Legislative Program Committee of the American Association of University Women, which is meeting today, that it is probable that an amendment providing for the addition of the word sex" to section 704 in until 7 of the civil rights bill on discrimination because of race, color, religion or national origin would be offered on the floor this afternoon. In our opinion the inclusion of the word "sex" in this title on discrimination is redundant and could actually work to the disadvantage of this very important legislation. We urge you to speak against this and other amendments which could weaken or impede the passage of this very vital legislation which you, as an AAUW member, know we in the association support.


Mrs. George C. Hahn,
Chairman, Legislative Program Committee.

   Mr. ROOSEVELT Mr. Chairman. will the gentlewoman yield?

   Mrs. GREEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman. I want to pay tribute to the courage and to the objectiveness of the very distinguished lady from Oregon. I want to corroborate what she has said. I want to say simply that before the Committee on Education and Labor there was an agreement that the committee of which my mother had the privilege to be chairman, when it was appointed, it was with the understanding that it would finish its work and after it finished its work and a report came from the administration, then a bill would be considered in the proper course of events. I would certainly say to the gentlelady, and I think she will agree that when that time comes and the recommendation is made we will try to find a way to eliminate the discriminations which have been spoken of without doing the injuries which we all know also might exist if we legislated in an unwise fashion.

   Mrs. GREEN. I thank the gentleman.

   Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

   Mrs. GREEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

   Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. I have the good fortune to be the chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor which handled the bill of the gentlewoman from Oregon providing, after years and years of effort on her behalf, equal pay for equal work for women. I know perfectly well that although this legislation is great and good, there are still things to be done. But I think the experience which the Congress had with respect to equal pay legislation might well be thought of carefully here.

   In the first instance it was not considered carefully enough, moved too fast and was defeated in this body. There is much to be done, that is true. If one were to consider carefully all of the suggestions, there is much to be done. This is a difficult area in which to legislate. I think, however, that we do not want to go so fast and so far that the old rule of abandoning ship will be changed and the woman will have to take her place in line rather than to go first.

   I do not think the gentlewoman from Oregon need yield to anyone, with all due respect to her colleagues, in the interests of legislating in behalf of women because she has proven it in the form of legislation. If one were to analyze all of the cases, the hypoethetical cases set forth by our distinguished colleague from Michigan [Mrs. GRIFFITHS], it would appear that only color need be substituted for sex in those instances, and the result of every one of them would be changed.

   So I thank the courageous gentlewoman from Oregon for her contribution, and I might say that I agree quite clearly with her.

   Mrs. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, this indeed seems to be, as my distinguished colleage from Oregon stated, ladles' afternoon. You have heard eloquent, articulate, logical, and consistent arguments in support of this amendment from my distinguished fellow female colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

   Certainly, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Mrs. GRIFFITHS] has outlined in effective legalistic terms what we are asking here today in the way of equal consideration for all women. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BOLTON] and others have presented additional cogent arguments. I believe the case is fully presented, and I do not wish to prolong the debate.

   However, in recognizing my colleague from Oregon [Mrs. GREEN], for her courageous stand, I would say that I do not think we can ever really assume what is in the mind of any one of the 435 Members of the House when he offers an amendment or prejudge any Member on how he intends to vote on a measure. I would not assume that responsibility. I know the gentlewoman is sincere in her convictions, as I am sincere, because we have worked together in this field of trying to get an equal rights amendment to the Constitution. But may I point out to her that I just cannot assume, as she has, that the addition of this important amendment, no matter who offers it, will jeopardize this bill. We have been trying since 1923 to get enacted in the Congress an equal rights for women amendment to the Constitution.

   Since 1923 more and more Members have offered this amendment, but we have never gotten the bill out of the Committee on the Judiciary. The League of Women Voters, some Federated Women's Clubs, the National Federation of Business and Professional Women have joined the National Woman's Party in consistently asking that wherever laws or Executive orders exist which forbid discrimination on account of race. color, religion, or national origin that these same laws and orders should also forbid discrimination on account of sex.

   Recently in our congressional mall we received a letter from Guffey Miller, national Chairman the National Woman's Party, which expresses alarm over the complete absence in this bill of any reference to civil rights for women. She says:

   We are alarmed over the interpretation that may be given to the words "discrimination on the account of race, color, religion and national origin" used in the bill, if the meaning of these words is not made clear in the bill itself. We are informed that in the past come government officials have interpreted "race, color, religion, and national origin" in a way that has discriminated against the white, native-born American woman of Christian religion.

   I share the views of my colleague from Oregon in her desire to eliminate the proven discrimination which colored women have suffered, but at the same time I feel it is only just and fair to give all women protection against discrimination.

   Mr. Chairman, this is to me the crux of the question before us. As I say, I am supporting the amendment on that basis and on behalf of the various women's organizations in this country that have for many years been asking for action from the Congress in this field, and who see this as the one possibility we may have of getting effective action.

   I urge your support of this amendment.

   Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not so state. There is little I can add to the arguments of my colleagues who supported this amendment. the gentlewoman from Michigan who presented most legal arguments. My colleague from New York [Mrs. Sr. GEORGE] who stated that "fringe benefits" and the protective laws of the several States would not be destroyed by our favorable action on this amendment. I also compliment my colleague from Oregon who is opposed to the amend-

[p. 2583]

ment, for her arguments, even though I disagree with her position. If this section VII, equal employment opportunity section cannot be perfected to include women, then, it has no place in the bill. Why restore civil rights to all and fall to give equal opportunity to all. My support and sponsorship of this amendment and of this bill is an endeavor to have all persons, men and women, possess the same rights and same opportunities. In this amendment we seek equal opportunity in employment for women. No more—no less.

   I do not want any person to secure more rights than any other all I want is same opportunities and right—on and in all levels of government, or entitles.

   I do not want anyone to be denied that which is his or her inherent rights as an individual.

   Let us recognize that there are many minorities in this country in all groups and organizations. There are minorities within groups as was mentioned this morning by previous speakers. For their opportunity, we seek to secure these rights under this bill—whether group is civic, social, or racial or an economic group.

   It is unfortunate that there is not equal opportunity on account of economic status. It is reaching a point in this country when a person cannot seek public office because one lacks the economic status. This must, too be corrected by proper legislation. Sure, all Americans do not want this. Furthermore. we do not want opportunities obtained on account of race, color, or creed, social status, or economic status—but on account of merit.

   I admit there are many places of employment I would prefer not to have women employed but I never want to deny them the right if they wish to seek that employment.

   I regret to state that the Department of Labor was against the equal pay bill for many, many years. I had introduced the bill back in 1951 and was delighted to have my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. GREEN]. achieve its passage last year. Mrs. Peterson whose letter was read in opposition to the present amendment does not speak for all the women of the United States nor do the university women.

   Again I state I am not for the equal pay amendment. I introduced the original equal pay bill as the answer to that amendment. I believe in equality for women, and am sure the acceptance of the amendment will not repeal the protective laws of the several States. I therefore urge all to support this amendment and hope it will prevail.

   Mr. TUTEN. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike out the last word.

   Mr. Chairman. I rise to compliment the performance of the brilliant female Members of this great body.

   It has been brought out in the debate here today that I am definitely a member of a minority group. In view of the reference to Innsbruck and the brilliant performance here on the floor-today, I accept my place, ladies, as a second-class citizen. Although I am second class and a member of a minority group, I rise to inform the Rouse that I always take my stand for the majority.

   I have been vigorously opposed to this bill—not as a racist—but in the interest of the rights of all of the citizens of this country. Since I am a man, which places me in the minority and makes me a second-class citizen—and the fact that I am white and from the South—I look forward to claiming my rights under the terms of this legislation.

   But, Mr. Chairman, the main purpose of my rising is this: Some men in some areas of the country might support legislation which would discriminate against women, but never let it be said that a southern gentleman would vote for such legislation.

   Therefore, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment.

   Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment.

   Mr. Chairman. I arise in support of the amendment and point out that the interests and welfare of all American citizens, without distinction as to sex, shall prevail. This principle of equality of rights under the law for all citizens without distinction as to sex would thereby safeguard American women from such inequities with regard to their civil rights as are now threatened in the pending civil rights bill.

   Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH]. Unless this amendment is adopted, the white women of this country would be drastically discriminated against in favor of a Negro woman.

   If a white woman and a Negro woman applied for the same job, and each woman had the identical qualifications, the chances are about 99 to 1 that the Negro woman would be given the job because if the employer did not give the job to the Negro woman he could be prosecuted under this bill. Failure to employ the white woman would not subject the employer to such action.

   Commonsense tells us that the employer would hire the Negro woman to avoid prosecution. The white woman will be at a great disadvantage in the business world unless this amendment is adopted.

   Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH] making it possible for the white Christian woman to receive the same consideration for employment as the colored woman. It is incredible to me that the authors of this monstrosity— whomever they are—would deprive the white woman of mostly Anglo-Saxon or Christian heritage equal opportunity before the employer. I know this Congress will not be a party to such an evil.

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike out the last word.

   Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the 5 minutes but I want to call attention to the fact that the gentlewoman from Oregon read a letter from the Organization of University Women.

   I did not mention it, but I assume all or you have received the same letter I received from the American Women's Party urging the adoption of this amendment. I hope you will take that into account in determining how to vote on this amendment.

   There is one thing that I want to say that I think is extremely serious about this bill so far as white women are concerned.

   If the bill is passed there is a provision in subparagraph (c) on page 79 which would require that every employer in the United States, from General Motors on down to anyone who employs as many as 25 people, keep an accurate record of all hiring and firing activities. That record would have to contain all of the details required by this Commission. The organization woud have to keep records as to why one was not employed and why another was employed.

   I put a question to you in behalf of the white women of the United States. Let us assume that two women apply for the same job and both of them are equally eligible, one a white woman and one a Negro woman. The first thing that employer will look at will be the provision with regard to the records he must keep. If he does not employ that colored woman and has to make that record, that employer will say. "Well, now, if I hire the colored woman I will not be in any trouble, but if I do not hire the colored woman and hire the white woman, then the Commission is going to be looking down my throat and will want to know why I did not. I may be in a lawsuit."

   That will happen as surely as we are here this afternoon. You all know it.

   I have not heard anybody give any valid reason why the amendment should not be adopted.

   Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, will my distinguished colleague yield?

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia I yield to my colleague.

   Mr. GARY. I wish to associate myself with my colleague in support of his amendment. I believe it is a good amendment and I trust the House will adopt it.

   Mr. HUDDLESTON Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

   Mr. HUDDLESTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I shall take only a minute.

   I do not wish to delay the further consideration of the bill any longer than necessary.

   We have all heard this afternoon from some of the opponents of this amendment a hue and cry that this will do so much damage to the civil rights bill. Those of you who were in the House in 1957 will remember that, at that time. we considered an amendment to allow women to serve on Federal juries. That amendment was offered on the floor. At that time the hue and cry went out from these same partisans to the effect that it would ruin the bill. It did not ruin that bill.

   I fail to see any logic in the argument that this amendment would do any damage to the legislation.

[p. 2584]

   I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

   Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. SMTTH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

   Mr. WATSON, Mr. Chairman, I commend my distinguished leader from Virginia for his foresight in presenting this splendid amendment. I join with him and others in wholehearted support of the amendment. I hope that it will pass to prove to everyone that we believe in equal rights for all people, and especially for the ladies of our Nation.

   Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, because I do not believe it belongs in this bill. I hope it will be voted down.

   Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

   Mr. MATHIAS. I concur fully with the gentleman from New York in opposition to the amendment.

   Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

   Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. I have been touched by the strong support of this legislation by some of my colleagues— for instance, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HUDDLESTON]. Could the gentleman tell me if he gave his support to the equal-pay-for-equal-work bill, considered a few months ago?

   Mr. HUDDLESTON. Last year?

   Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Yes.

   Mr. HUDDLESTON. I supported that legislation, and I also supported the amendment in the 1957 civil rights bill to allow women to serve on Federal juries. I intend to support the amendment this afternoon.

   Mrs. GREEN of Oregon, I am glad the gentleman did. However, many of the people who are most ardent in support of this amendment today were among those who appeared before our committee and who talked to me on the floor and who were the strongest in their opposition to a very simple bill to provide equal pay for equal work for women.

   Because of biological differences between men and women, there are different problems which will arise in regard to employment. These should be carefully considered by the Committee. There will be new problems for business, for managers, for industrial concerns. These should be taken into consideration before any vote is made in favor of the amendment without any hearings at all on the legislation.

   Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to quote from the President's Commission on Opportunities for Women of which, as I previously said, my mother was the Chairman. There are the following words in that report, and I hope you will all read them:

   Actually situations vary far too much to make generalizations applicable and more information is needed on rates of quits, layoffs. absenteeism, and illness among women workers and on the qualifications of women for responsible supervisory or executive positions.

   This is a clear indication that responsible women themselves recognize the problems that are inherent in any such approach as has now been proposed. I shall have to vote against the proposition. Mr. CELLER, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. LINDSAY, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

   Mr. CELLER, I ask for this time in order to ask the gentleman from California if he will furnish some of the names of the women members and the organizations that are represented on that President's Commission of which your late lamented mother was Chairman.

   Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not want to take the time of the Committee to read all of them, but there are Dr. Mary I, Bunting, president, Radcliffe College: Mrs. Mary E. Callahan, member, executive board, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers; Miss Dorothy Height, president. National Council of Negro Women. Inc., Miss Margaret Hickey, public affairs editor. Ladies' Home Journal; Mrs. Viola H. Hymes, president, National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.; Miss Margaret J. Mealey, executive director. National Council of Catholic Women; Mr. William F. Schnitzler, secretary-treasurer. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations: Dr. Cynthia C. Wedel, assistant general secretary for program. National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

   I shall ask later for the privilege of inserting the entire list.

   The list of all members of the Commission follows:


   The names of the men and women appointed to the Commission, and the posts they occupied at the time of their appointment, were:

   Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairman,(deceased)

   Mrs. Estber Peterson. Executive Vice Chairman, Assistant Secretary of Labor.

   Dr. Richard A. Lester, Vice Chairman, Chairman, Department of Economics, Princeton University.

   The Attorney General, Hon Robert F. Kennedy.

   The Secretary of Agriculture, Hon. Orville L. Freeman.

   The Secretary of Commerce, Hon. Luther H. Hodges.

   The Secretary of Labor, Hon. Arthur J. Goldberg, Hon. W. Willard Wirtz.

   The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Hon. Abraham A. Ribicon, Hon. Anthony L. Celebrezze.

   Hon. George D. Aiken. U.S. Senate.

   Hon. Maurine B. Neuberger. U.S. Senate.

   Hon. Edith Green, U.S. House of Representatives.

   Hon. Jessica M. Weis (deceased), U.S. House of Representatives.

   The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Hon. John W. Macy. Jr.

   Mrs. Macon Boddy, Henrietta. Tex.

   Dr. Mary I. Bunting, president, Radcliffe College.

   Mrs. Mary E. Callahan, member, executive board. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers.

   Dr. Henry David, president. New School for Social Research.

   Miss Dorothy Height, president. National Council of Negro Women, Inc.

   Miss Margaret Hickey, public affairs editor, Ladies Home Journal.

   Mrs. Viola H. Hymes, president. National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.

   Miss Margaret J. Mealey, executive director, National Council of Catholic Women.

   Mr. Norman E. Nicholson, administrative assistant, Kaiser. Industries Corp., Oakiand, Calif.

   Miss Marguerite Rawalt, attorney; past president Federal Bar Association. National Association of Women Lawyers, National Federation of Business & Professional Women's Clubs, Inc.

   Mr. William F. Schnitzier secretary-treasurer. American Federal of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

   Dr. Caroline F. Ware. Vienna, Va.

   Dr. Cynthia C. Wedel, assistant general secretary for program, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

   Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

   There was no objection.

   Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH] to protect the employment rights of all women should be agreed to. There can be no plausible reason that a white woman should be deprived of an equal opportunity to get a job simply because of her sex and a colored woman obtain that position because of her preferential rights as contained in this bill. Title VII seeks to make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fall or refuse to hire or to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, or national origin. The language covers all employees, or would-be employees, except white women. I do not want to discriminate against a job applicant because of her sex and I hope that Members of this body will approve the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.

   The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH].

   Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand tellers.

   Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. CELLER and Mrs. GRIFFITHS.

   The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 168, noes 133.

   So the amendment was agreed to.


back to top